(A shorter version of this article was published in the Winter,
2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html)

In July of 2001 I went to see the movie Cats and Dogs.
I arrived early enough to see the advertisements that are shown
before the previews, and was surprised by one that boldly stated,
"Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real. www.endracism.org."
The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be
on the screen? I had encountered examples of racial denial for
almost a decade, but mostly on the fringes, in places not noticed
by the masses, in obscure publications and websites. But seeing
it on the silver screen made it seem so mainstream, so acceptable,
so normal.

As an American of Northern European (Nordish) ancestry who
loves my race and wants it to be preserved, I have long been concerned
by its declining prospects. But sitting in that theater the continued
existence of my race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing
is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial
is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if
not of every race, most certainly of my race. How can it be that
the existence of that which I love and wish to preserve is being
denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that
this mid-American audience is being given a powerful message that
the object of my love and devotion does not exist, is not real,
and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist?

If this message is now appearing on the screen of a movie theater,
what is the message in the education system? The current "politically
correct" teaching on the subject of racial reality is represented
by the highly acclaimed 2003 PBS documentary series Race: The
Power of an Illusion, and its matching website at http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm,
produced by Larry Adelman and widely distributed and used throughout
the education system. The essential message of this series is
found in its ten points, or "quick facts," which are
discussed in order below. The title of the series reveals its
conclusion and message, that race is an illusion, not real, and
a harmful illusion at that. In its December, 2003 issue Scientific
American had an article on the subject which essentially supported
the now "politically correct" position. The deceptive
nature of this semi-orchestrated campaign is symbolized by the
cover illustration. Of the six female faces supposedly representing
individuals from different races only one face is real, a real
person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right
corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications
of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they
are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the
real differences of race by "nordicizing" all the races,
making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race
than they actually are.

How did all this come to pass? The denial of racial realities
is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of
Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial
reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating
in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters
has grown. There has been denial of many racial differences, especially
the mental differences that cannot be seen. There has been denial
of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt
to minimize them. There has been denial of the consequences of
multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its
racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence
of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that
is denied.

Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding
century, we should have expected this development. We should have
seen it coming. Perhaps when we each first came across a claim
that races were not real we dismissed it as incredulous nonsense
not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take
seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching
a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia,
with all that this means. The very belief in the existence of
different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism,
and from there reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately
with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly
stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end
racism and prevent genocide. [Note #1]

It is a sad commentary on our worsening situation that the
reality of race is even doubted, much less increasingly denied
by the dominant culture. The denial of race is actually just the
latest escalation in the efforts by the currently dominant multiracialist
power structure to preempt, block and prevent consideration of
Nordish racial interests and the real issues that confront the
Nordish race, including the ultimate issue of racial preservation
or survival. We have long been familiar with other tactics used
for the same purpose which include, but are not limited to:
1. The minimization or trivialization of racial differences to
portray them, and race itself, as having no meaning, importance
or value, and thus as not worth preserving. The claim that race
does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic.
2. The claim that the Nordish race is already mixed. This is asserted
both for the Nordish race as a whole and for specific individuals
who do not appear to be mixed, although these claims are usually
not specific or substantiated by evidence. These claims are presented
as proof that racial mixture does not harm the Nordish race or
its existence in any way, so it is not a threat and opposition
to it is unjustified.

These tactics are really a cover or smokescreen to evade the
real issues of Nordish racial interests, especially racial preservation.
I have found that, when pressed, those who claim the Nordish race
is mixed are those who want it to be mixed, and those who deny
race are those who do not want race to exist, or at least do not
want the Nordish race to exist. For it is the Nordish race, the
race and racial type and traits of the peoples of Northern Europe,
that they are specifically concerned with, and that is the central
focus of their promotion of racial denial and mixture. The Nordish
race is the race that the race deniers really do not want to exist,
whose existence they want to destroy, and whose existence they
therefore deny, even to the extent of denying the existence of
race in general.

But these assertions are more than just wishful thinking by
those who wish the Nordish race did not exist. They are also a
means of wish fulfillment, a self-fulfilling prophecy, by preventing
consideration of ultimate Nordish racial interests, for the traits
that are minimized, trivialized, demeaned and denied, and by these
tactics threatened with destruction, are the traits of the Nordish
race. It is really the existence of the Nordish race that is being
minimized, trivialized, demeaned, and denied, and the purpose
of all these tactics is to prevent, evade and avoid consideration
of the fact that the Nordish race is threatened with destruction.
Denying the reality or existence of a race, or a people, greatly
facilitates their destruction and reduction to non-existence.

I have been involved in many discussions, debates or arguments
concerning the reality of race since my website (www.racialcompact.com)
went on the internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with
race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have
usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support,
and even their desire, for Northern European extinction. [Note
#2] More recently my involvement
in these arguments has tended to be indirect, as visitors to my
site who have used the material they found there in their own
exchanges with race deniers have sought my advice and assistance.

These arguments usually follow a similar pattern. The race
denier begins with attempts to discredit the traditional methods
of racial classification, especially racial typology based on
phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one's
physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional
racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification.
The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty
about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from their
argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or
because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity has
been created, they deny the reality of race. But if you press
the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality
of races -- the apparent focus of their argument -- but the issue
of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European
racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate
issue for them is the same as it is for me, the preservation of
the Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference
is that they are against Northern European preservation and I
am for it.

A common tactic of the race deniers is to demand proof of the
reality of race, without setting a standard of what would constitute
sufficient proof. This is related to their avoidance of an objective
or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate
definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of the
race denial argument.

So, what is this thing called race? To start at the beginning,
the word race refers to the different geographic populations of
humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished
from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits,
i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotype.
Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that
are associated with these populations and by which they are identified.
These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of
years before the word race became the common term to refer to
them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those
populations and phenotypes to which it refers. This is, admittedly,
circular logic, like Gertrude Stein's "a rose is a rose is
a rose." But the existence and reality of things that are
tangible, material, physical, and visible, that are clearly obvious
to operable senses, is normally accepted as self-evident and not
requiring external proof, as the proof is self-contained, in themselves.
Reasonable people do not question their existence, or require
proof of their reality based on some arbitrary standard. If the
existence of something is denied, and the object is presented,
its existence must be admitted. To deny the existence of something
that is visibly present is unreasonable. The object that is denied
by race deniers, race, is visibly present in abundance, both as
individuals and as populations, far beyond any reasonable requirement.

The Evidence for Racial Reality

But if more proof is asked for, what kind of proof is required
for the reality of race? What standard of proof is reasonable?
If concrete proof is not enough, and the proof of abstract logic
is required, the best proof is a convergence of proofs -- proof
from different and independent lines of evidence that converge
in mutual and consistent support for the same conclusion. Among
the convergent lines of evidence that are consistent in mutually
supporting the reality of race are geography, history, phenotype,
evolutionary theory, forensic science and, most recently, genetic
studies.

Races are geographically real. They are geographical populations,
with a geographic distribution. They are, or were until recent
times, geographically separated from other races. Their origin
and existence is connected to a specific geographic region they
have historically inhabited. The connection of geography and race
is seen in the strong correlation between the degree of racial
difference and the geographic distance separating the original
habitats of the different races. The geographic connection occurs
because races are breeding populations forming a common gene pool
and stable racial environment over many generations, and before
modern transportation advances this required that the native homeland
of the race be geographically limited and compact. The continuation
or preservation of the race also required geographic separation
from other racial elements to prevent intermixture or replacement
that would alter or destroy the race. This meant that other races
had to be excluded from its geographic range, that its possession
of its native homeland had to be racially exclusive. This exclusivity
did not have to be total or absolute, but sufficient to create
and preserve the race. Although migrations of racial elements
outside of their original homelands have occurred, especially
in the last five centuries, often intermixing with other races
to create intermediate forms, the populations that remain in the
original homelands act as control groups or standards of reference
for racial classification and study. Emigrant populations that
expanded the geographic range of their race into new habitats,
and restricted their reproduction within their own race, continued
to be of the same race as those in the native homelands, and in
their racial heritage and origins they remained identified with
those homelands. These geographic populations are facts on the
ground, existing in the real world, in their own part of the world
exactly where one would expect to find them, there for all to
see. They are facts that can be observed and measured as part
of objective reality, marked by their distinguishing physical
characteristics or racial phenotype. National Geographic magazine,
in its long history of publication, has published countless articles
that irrefutably document the geographic connection, distribution,
and reality, of race.

Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia
and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces,
are documented in the written historical record from its beginning
over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over
a thousand years earlier. The races of the Americas, Australia
and the Pacific enter the historical record from the moment when
the first Western explorers found them. From the dawn of history
to our own time the existence, geographic location, distinguishing
physical features and movements of these races have been a recognizable
part of the historical record. Races are also prehistorically
real. Modern pre-historians, anthropologists and archaeologists
have pushed our knowledge of the modern races back thousands of
years before the beginnings of written history. It is clear that
the races we know today have existed, in a continuum of generations,
for many thousands of years.

Races are phenotypically real. Phenotype, the physical part
of race that we can see, and so must admit that race is at least
that if nothing more, is tangibly and visibly real. It is also
the visible proof that race is inherited, that it is genetically
transmitted from generation to generation with scientific consistency
and predictability. This means that race is genetically real,
determined by the genes, that it is in the genes and from the
genes, which means that race is a biological phenomenon, and biologically
real. Phenotype -- the genetically inherited and determined traits
of physical appearance -- is also the definitive racial identifier
used to classify race. Every race has a certain range of different
phenotypes or racial elements within its population. But there
is no phenotypic overlap between the major racial divisions of
humanity. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals
each from Nigeria, England and China -- with each group being
representative of their native populations ­ the average person
would have no difficulty identifying which group was which. Even
if they were all mixed together, the average person would have
no difficulty separating them by phenotype into their correct
racial category with complete accuracy. However, phenotypic overlap
is often found between the racial subdivisions within the major
racial divisions. If you took three groups of one hundred individuals
each from three different subdivisions of the Caucasian racial
division, represented by England, Italy and Syria -- with each
group being representative of their native populations -- the
average person would again have no difficulty identifying which
group was which. Although there would be some phenotypic overlap
between the English and Italian groups, and between the Italian
and Syrian groups, each group would contain a large majority of
phenotypes that would be rare or absent from the other groups.
If the groups were mixed together the average person would probably
be less than completely accurate in separating the English from
the Italians, or the Italians from the Syrians, but it is likely
that he would be completely accurate in separating the English
from the Syrians. Phenotype proves that race is real. But it also
shows that part of that reality is that race is a continuum, marked
by many subdivisions with subtle gradations of racial change that
correlate with spatial and temporal distance.

On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences
(2004), authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role
of phenotype in racial classification. Unlike those biologists
who make politically correct denials of the scientific reality
of race without providing any standard of what is required for
race to be considered real, Sarich and Miele do provide us with
standards for race for non-human species that are accepted by
biologists. There is no accepted genetic standard as genetic knowledge
is still too incomplete (as the authors point out, until very
recently dogs could not be genetically distinguished from wolves),
but there is a long-accepted phenotypic standard based on "sorting
accuracy." Basically, by this standard, if the biologists
who specialize in the study of a species can sort two different
populations of the species based on phenotype or physical traits
with 75% or more accuracy they are considered to be separate races.
The authors point out that although races, unlike species, are
not discrete, so some phenotypic overlap is to be expected of
them, the fact is that there are at least twenty human populations
that can be phenotypically distinguished from each other with
a sorting accuracy of 100%. By the actual standards applied by
biologists to non-human species, that of 75% or more sorting accuracy,
there are literally hundreds of separate human races. The authors
state that most people could even achieve close to 100% sorting
accuracy in distinguishing the populations of Athens and Copenhagen.
I would add that most people could also probably achieve a greater
than 75% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the indigenous populations
of London and Paris. So it is only by hypocritical double standards,
applying different standards to the human species than non-human
species, that biologists can deny the reality of human races.
This standard allows the authors to state: "if we employ
a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population
within a species that can be readily distinguished from other
such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only
heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence
of a substantial number of human races."

In my discussions with race deniers I find that they almost
never provide an accurate definition of race, and usually no definition
at all, so my first step is to both demand and provide an accurate
definition. Sarich and Miele note this problem when they begin
"this trip out of political correctness and into reality"
by providing an accurate working definition of race, as follows:
"Races are populations, or groups of populations, within
a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations
or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the
basis of heritable features" (page 207).

Evolutionary theory supports the reality of human races. It
assumes that the extent of biological variation within a species
correlates with the extent of its geographic range. The greater
the geographic range the greater the degree of biological variation.
Race is biological variation. The human species has had a hemispheric
geographic range for perhaps 100,000 years and a global geographic
range for at least 10,000 years, and displays the high degree
of biological variation that evolutionary theory expects and predicts
from such a widely distributed population. Biological variation
is the driving force behind evolution and the creation of new
species. It is caused by the separation of populations by geographic
distance or barriers. It would be inconsistent with evolutionary
theory if the human species, with its unsurpassed level of geographical
population separation, did not display a highly developed degree
of biological variation, developing or evolving into different
races. There is a logical progression to evolution. It is continuous,
from phylum to class to order to family to genus to species to
race. It does not stop with species. It creates races, which develop
in turn into new species. Race is the evolutionary stage of a
population before it becomes a different species. To deny it is
to claim that evolution has stopped.

Forensic science supports the reality of the human races, and
can racially identify race from skeletal remains with great accuracy,
as described by forensic scientist George Gill: [Note
#3]

The "reality of race" depends more on the definition
of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept
the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have
traditionally established -- major races: black, white, etc.
-- then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well
as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth,
femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist
as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive
observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself
over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more
accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking
at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic
anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real"
or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue
does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply
not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

Race is genetically real. Genetics is the newest branch of
evidence to support the reality of race. Ironically, genetics
is the line of evidence that race deniers favor, in fact it is
often the only one that they will accept, in the belief that it
supports their contention that race is not real. In reality, and
in spite of the obligatory protestations to the popular press
by geneticists to the contrary, race does exist in the genes and
is genetically determined. There are also many genetic differences
between the races in genes that are not determinative of race.
There are countless genetic studies that show racial differences
in the frequencies of different gene sequences and genetic traits,
although the term population is commonly used as a euphemism for
race.

The primary reason that race deniers claim that genetics proves
that race is not real is the percentage of genetic differences
between the races. They claim that the percentages are too small
to constitute different races. They do not say what standard is
applied to determine what percentage of genetic difference is
required to constitute a race, only that the difference between
human populations is too small. But no percentage of genetic difference
has ever been asserted as a basis for racial classification. Indeed,
until the last two decades scientists and laymen alike had little
idea what the percentage of genetic differences was between races,
or between species. When they make this argument, race deniers
do not mention that the genetic difference between humans and
chimpanzees is also much smaller than the layman would tend to
expect. Most genetic studies show a genetic difference of 1.24%
to 1.7% between humans and chimpanzees, with the most commonly
cited figure being 1.6% [Note #4]. But this represents far more than the
genetic difference between races. It is more than the genetic
difference between species, and even more than the genetic difference
between genera. It represents the genetic difference between taxonomic
Families, because humans and chimpanzees are in different biological
Families. Humans are in the Family Hominidae (of which they are
the only surviving species) and chimpanzees, our species' closest
living relatives, are in the Family Pongidae.

What are the percentages of genetic differences between the
human races? Perhaps the best study to date on this subject is
that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury (1993) [Note
#5]. Nei and Roychoudhury use a
different methodology than that of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et al.
(1988) which in their opinion "introduced unreasonable branching
patterns into phylogenetic trees," a reference to Cavalli-Sforza's
grouping of Northeast Asians in the same cluster with Caucasians
rather than with Southern Chinese and Southeast Asians. The following
percentages of genetic differences between human populations and
the phylogenetic tree below are from their study. The chimpanzee
percentage is added for context and a standard of comparison.

If one were to spatially visualize the first column of the
above scale, with a German standing at a distance of 20 feet from
an Englishman, a Finn would stand at a distance of 50 feet, an
Italian at 70 feet, a northern Indian at 200 feet, a Japanese
at 610 feet, a North American Amerindian at 760 feet, a Nigerian
at 1,330 feet, and a Chimpanzee at 16,000 feet. The greatest percentage
of genetic difference is .176% between Nigerians and Australian
Aborigines. This is 11% of the genetic difference of 1.6% between
humans and chimpanzees, different biological Families whose ancestral
lines are believed to have separated 5-7 million years ago. [Note #6]
The .133% genetic difference between the English and Nigerian
populations is 8.3% as large as the genetic difference between
humans and chimpanzees. The .061% genetic difference between the
English and Japanese or Korean populations is 3.8% as large as
the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. Seen in
this context, these are very significant genetic differences.
It is also worth noting that for both the English and the Japanese,
representing Europeans and Northeast Asians, the greatest percentage
of genetic difference is with the Nigerians, and that the degree
of this difference, .133% for the English and .149% for the Japanese,
is very similar. By comparison, the English and Japanese degree
of difference from the Australian Aborigine population, .122%
for the English and .062% for the Japanese, is very different,
with the English-Australoid difference twice as great as the Japanese-Australoid
difference. The phylogenetic tree below graphically illustrates
the genetic relationships of the different populations.

This phylogenetic tree shows that genetic studies group the
populations of humanity into superclusters and clusters that are
consistent with the traditional racial divisions and subdivisions,
providing genetic proof that race is real and that the traditional
racial classifications are accurate. The political statements
made by geneticists to the popular press to the effect that their
studies show that "race is not a valid scientific concept,"
or that "race has no genetic or scientific basis," should
be seen in this context and perspective. Such politically motivated
statements cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific process
as practiced by these geneticists, tending to discredit their
studies.

A secondary genetic argument of the race deniers is attributed
to Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, who first proposed it in
1972. This is the claim, based on a standard measure of variation
known as "Wright's fixation index" or FST,
that only 15% of human genetic variability is racial, or
between different populations and unique to each race, while 85%
is non-racial or race neutral, between individuals and common
to every race, presumably from the beginning of the modern human
species. Lewontin and others have used this measurement to argue
that the variation between different human populations is too
small to justify classifying them as different subspeces or races,
with the implication that the Nordish part of the 15% of genetic
variability that is racial is expendable for the achievement of
a world in which race, or at least the Northern European or Nordish
race, does not exist. This claim is really a value judgment, and
one which has been increasingly adopted as politically correct
by the academic community, consistent with its ongoing Boasian
agenda to minimize, trivialize and deny the importance or reality
of race and racial differences, and thereby delegitimize and discredit
racial preservationist concerns. It is repeated as point 5 of
the 10 points in the PBS series Race: The Power of an Illusion,
discussed below. But those who make this value judgment, beginning
with Lewontin, fail to provide a standard for the FST
measurement for context and comparison. This is for good reason,
as Lewontin's value judgment is not supported by, or consistent
with, the FST measurement system itself,
but contradicts it. Addressing this issue, the degree of variation
between different human populations, the inventor of the FST measure, the late Sewell Wright, stated emphatically
that "if racial differences this large were seen in another
species, they would be called subspecies." (Nicholas Wade,
Before the Dawn, 2006, pp. 191-193.) And in fact this is
the case, as the populations of many other species with levels
of variation similar to that found between different human populations
are classified as subspecies. (see http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html)

Finally, there is also the question of whether the FST
measurement system is really the most accurate method of
measuring the variation between populations. Sarich and Miele
(Race: The Reality of Human Differences, p. 169) detail
Harry Harpending's 2002 calculation showing that the true proportion
of human genetic variability that is racial is 32.5%, not 15%
as measured by the FST system, upon which
standard the "Lewontin fallacy" is wrongly claimed to
be based:

First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other
85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between
the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons.
The increase in variability in between-population comparisons
is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent [not 85 percent]
that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 =
32.5 percent [as opposed to 15/100 = 15 percent]

The cumulative effect of theses converging lines of evidence
should make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that race is
real. But before we come to the conclusion that the claims of
the race deniers are beyond reason, some of their more common
arguments should be examined.

Arguments for Racial Denial

(1) The genetic ignorance argument. We do not yet know what
genes are actually involved in determining racial differences,
or how they do it. Race deniers use this to claim that race is
not genetically real. Yet no one can reasonably dispute that race
consists of inherited traits, transmitted by parents to their
children, and inherited traits must be genetic traits, as the
only means known by science to transmit inherited traits is through
the genes. Also, we do not yet know what genes are involved in
causing many diseases that are known to be inherited, yet because
we know they are inherited we know they are caused by genes, and
the search for these genes is the purpose of most genetic studies.

(2) Argument by trivialization. This argument admits the reality
of population differences, both physical and genetic, but claims
they are of no importance and are not great enough to qualify
as racial differences. This argument attempts to make the issue
of racial reality a subjective value judgment, and belittles the
biological variation that exists between the diverse human populations
as being of no value or importance, and not a legitimate matter
for concern, love or devotion. Basically, this argument asserts
that the only human traits that are valuable or important are
those traits shared by all humans in common, while racial differences,
those traits that are unique to particular populations and not
shared by all, are of no significance.

(3) Argument by false definition. Race deniers frequently confuse
race and species in their argument, setting a standard for race
that is the same as the standard for species, implicitly applying
the definition of species to race. Since humanity is one species,
with no different human species, it is then argued by false definition
that there are no different human races, defining race out of
existence. The distinguishing difference between species and race,
of course, is that species cannot interbreed, or at least do not
interbreed under natural conditions, while races can and do interbreed
when there is extensive contact between them. Race deniers wrongly
use the existence of hybrid or racially-mixed individuals and
populations, which prove that the different human populations
interbreed and are therefore races rather than species, as proof
that all humans are of one race, not different races, confusing
race with species and defining race out of existence. As one recent
study states:

If biological is defined as genetic then a decade or more
of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore
biological, differentiation among the races.[I]t is difficult
to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead
to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation.
[Note #7]

An example of the effort to define race out of existence can
be found on the website of Palomar College. [Note
#8] It sets up a strawman, a false
definition and very narrow and strict standard of what constitutes
race, allowing it to deny the reality of race on the grounds that
human variation does not meet that standard or definition:

"Most physical anthropologists would agree that this human
variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological
races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was
in our prehistoric past."

But if races did exist, were real, in our prehistoric past,
when did they cease to exist and stop being real? What happened
to them, that caused them to no longer be races? How did it happen?
When did it happen? What is the standard that determines what
degree of human variation is sufficient to warrant defining separate
biological races, for race to be considered to be real? When was
this standard created, and who created it? What standard, if any,
did it replace? Did the reality of race ever depend on a standard
set by physical anthropologists? Was not the term "race"
common usage to refer to identifiable populations and individuals,
and defined as those identifiable populations and individuals,
long before physical anthropology existed? And if the use of the
term race to refer to identifiable populations and individuals
predated the existence of physical anthropology, how and why should
physical anthropologists presume to redefine it out of existence?
Or is it not that races have changed, but that the racial composition
of academia has changed, that classrooms, student bodies, campuses
and faculties have been multiracialized, and that this multiracial
environment discourages any expression of racial consciousness
and identity, even the belief that race is real, as racially divisive?

So, how should race be defined? As with other things that exist,
an accurate definition of race is one that describes it as it
is, as it really is, as it really exists. The definitions of race
in the encyclopedias and dictionaries that I grew up with described
something real, race as it really is, and by those definitions
race exists and is real. Race and the reality of race have not
changed. It is the definitions of race that have changed, as the
race deniers attempt to change the definition of race to redefine
it out of existence. If race does exist as described in earlier
standard definitions, but does not exist as described in the new
definition of the race deniers, that means that the new definition
is wrong and does not accurately describe the reality of race,
not that race is not real. An accurate definition describes something
as it is, not by some abstract concept of what it should be, and
then declare that it does not exist when it does not match that
concept. Race is not an abstract concept but something that is
tangibly and visibly real. The race deniers who say they do not
believe in the "concept" of race know this. They know
what the common usage of the term race refers to, what the accurate
definition of race is, and what we mean when we refer to race.
They know what we are talking about, and they know it is real.
But the race deniers are too clever by half. They know the only
way they can deny race is to create a false definition under which
race does not exist, and by which they can pretend to refute the
reality of race. The reasons for their success in this argument,
like their motives, are political, not scientific.

(4) Argument by false methods of racial identification and
classification. Similar to #3 above, this argument claims that
the traditional typological methods of racial identification and
classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary.
It contends that other methods would yield very different results,
classifying different types ­ as measured by these different
methods ­ into groupings that differ from the traditional
racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. Blood
groups, for example, are not distributed in a manner that coincides
with the traditional racial groupings. But the traditional methods
of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance
are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on,
reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations
of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively
observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ
between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance
by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and
identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished
and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed
in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid
methods of racial identification in the real world.

(5) The continuum and differentiation arguments. This is an
argument based on the real complexity of race, that refutes the
many simplistic concepts and systems of racial classification
and then pretends that it has refuted the reality of race. The
reality is that race is a complex of multiple continuums with
gradations of intermediate, hybrid or mixed types (called clines)
between the distinct types at the ends of the continuums. These
clines are geographically distributed in clinal zones located
between the regions inhabited by the distinct types. Race deniers
argue that these intermediate, mixed or clinal types make scientifically
accurate differentiation between the races impossible. Dividing
lines between races in the intermediate ranges of the racial continuums
are often difficult to determine and appear arbitrary, especially
in simplistic classification systems that attempt to fit all human
populations into a few major races. The race deniers exploit this
complexity to discredit the accuracy of the simplistic classification
systems and then deny the reality of the complexity. But the existence
of continuums or clines, rather than disproving the reality of
race, is actually a characteristic of race and thus serves as
proof of its reality. If there were no racial continuums or clines
there would be no intermediate forms, no interbreeding between
the races, and humanity would be divided into species rather than
races. Without different races there could be no continuums or
clines between them, so the existence of continuums is proof of
the existence of races. As stated in the study cited above, "The
existence of such intermediate groups should not overshadow the
fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human
population occurs at the racial level." [Note
#9]

(6) The scientific obsolescence argument. This argument claims
that the idea of race is based on a false, outdated and obsolete
concept of science from a previous era, e.g., the "colonial
era," the 17th century, etc. In other words, it says that
belief in race is backward, outdated and "old-fashioned,"
an adjective that has great weight with those who like to see
themselves as advanced thinkers. It cites false beliefs or myths
about race from those earlier eras that are easily refuted as
proof of this claim, and by refuting these false beliefs pretends
that it has refuted the reality of race. Every branch of science
has suffered from many false beliefs and theories during its history.
Physics, biology and medicine began in the 6th-4th centuries B.C.
and each has had a long history of false beliefs and theories,
yet these sciences are still recognized as valid. They are not
regarded as obsolete because of discarded false beliefs.

(7) The social or political construct argument. Race deniers
and deconstructionists often claim that race is a social or political
construct that has no biological or genetic reality. This argument
includes the claim that the idea of race was created in America,
with the first contact of Europeans with other major races and
the subsequent centuries of their political and social inequality,
and that America exported its concept of race to Europe and the
rest of the world. This argument (which shares some ideas with
#6 above) often gains credence from biologists and geneticists
who try to avoid the political controversies surrounding race
by claiming it is not relevant to their studies. But it collapses
when confronted with an accurate definition of race and the most
basic evidence of racial reality. The irony is that the idea that
race is not real has itself been socially and politically constructed
during the last several decades. The following newspaper article
from 1996 shows this process of construction and many of the race
denial arguments and techniques, with my comments in brackets:
[Note #10]

WASHINGTON -- Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular
biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept
of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups.
[What 'spectacular" advances? Genetic studies show the validity
of race, and other sources claim that "most scientists"
accept that validity.] Contrary to widespread public opinion,
researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological
categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit
from their parents [Argument #1 above. Not inherited from parents?
No scientist is quoted as saying this.]...."Race has no
basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University
biologist.Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists,
drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s,
have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political
concept based largely on superficial appearances. "In the
social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is
not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at
the University of California at Berkeley. [Argument #7]
The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem
to contradict common sense. [Races not the product of genes?
As in the similar statement above, no scientist is quoted as
saying this.] "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief
when told there is no such thing as race," said C. Loring
Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. "The
skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further
evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves
intellectuals." [The pre-emptive argument, #13 below]
The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. "Vast
new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology...have
completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon
Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This
is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of
the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed
that humans could be sorted into a few...inherited racial types
[The obsolescence argument, #6 above]....As recently as 1985,
anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard
Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if
they believe in the existence of separate biological races....As
a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks
published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the
concept of biological race....[T]he revised concept of race...reflects
recent scientific work with DNA...."We are beginning to
get good data at the DNA level," said a Yale geneticist,
Kenneth Kidd....[which]"support the concept that you can't
draw boundaries around races." [The continuum argument,
#5 above]

Most of the arguments for race denial are present in this report.
The two statements that race is not genetically inherited from
parents, and is not the product of genes, are central to the contention
that race is socially or politically constructed, not biologically
constructed, and thus not biologically, genetically or scientifically
real. No scientist is actually quoted in this report making these
statements, but they are placed amid quotes from scientists, creating
the impression that this is what scientists say. If the claim
is true that race is not inherited from parents and ancestors,
transmitted consistently from generation to generation, then it
is not genetic or biological, and the contention that it is socially
or politically constructed will stand. But if race is inherited
from parents and ancestors then it must be genetic, and if genetic
it is biological, genetically and biologically determined and
constructed, and cannot be socially or politically constructed.
If race is seen at the level of individual phenotypes it is obvious
that it is consistently inherited from the parents and ancestors.
The inheritance of race is so consistent that obvious exceptions
to it might not even exist.

So what is the source of the contention that race is a social
and political construct, created by the social and political environment
and not by inherited genes? This contention is very similar to
the theory of Lysenkoism, and this similarity reveals its common
source. Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976) was a Soviet biologist who
theorized that environmentally acquired characteristics could
be inherited. This theory, by denying genetic determinism, supported
the possibility of achieving an egalitarian utopia by environmental
engineering. This coincided with Marxist ideology, so Lysenko's
theory became biological dogma promoted and enforced by the Soviet
government. The result was that Soviet biology was hampered in
the study of genetics, the real means of inheritance, and fell
behind the rest of the world. The current contention that race
is not genetically determined, not biologically real, but is socially
or politically constructed, derives in large part from the same
ethno-racial source, and the same political motive and purpose,
as Marxist ideology. In fact, race denial is even more radical
in its rejection of reality than Lysenkoism. In pursuit of its
egalitarian vision it does not merely claim that race can be altered
by the inheritance of environmentally acquired traits, but that
race is not inherited in any biological sense at all, that biology
and genes have no role in its construction or creation. It contends
instead that race is totally constructed (created) by environmental
factors (i.e., political and social factors). The Marxist ideological
tradition is the logical source of this contention.

This Marxist connection is given further support by the ethnic
dynamics of race denial. The victim of race denial is the European
races, and especially the Northern European race. It is they,
and only they, who are actually threatened with dispossession
and destruction by multiracialism, a process assisted by race
denial. The beneficiaries of race denial, those who want to "abolish
the white race" -- in the terms of Noel Ignatiev, a long-time
Marxist-Jewish activist for both Marxism and the destruction of
the European races under cover of the Marxist theory that races
are social classes rather than biological populations -- are non-Europeans.
Their classic Marxist revolutionary goal is to overthrow, dispossess,
destroy and replace the European race, and in Marxist fashion
they define it as a social class, socially constructed, rather
than a race. Their class enemy, the oppressive and privileged
"social class" that they want to abolish, is the "white"
race. In the context in which they use the term, "white"
refers only to the European peoples, and especially the Northern
European peoples. There always was an ethno-racial agenda behind
Marxism, and the Marxist-Jewish promoters of that agenda have
caused great harm to the European peoples over the last century.
[Note #11]
Noel Ignatiev proves that this anti-Northern European Marxist
racial agenda is still operating against the interests of the
Northern European race.

Since the 1960s the racial agenda of Marxism, and the Marxist
political "Left," has become more obvious. In the nineteenth
and early twentieth century the "Left" identified the
aristocracy and "bourgeois capitalists" as the "class
enemies," "exploiters" or "oppressors"
to be overthrown by revolution and destroyed. In the late twentieth
century it increasingly targeted the "white" race as
the enemy, as an oppressive and evil racial elite that must be
overthrown by any means necessary. Consistent with this view,
the "Left" has revealed a distinctly anti-Northern European
bias, causing it to single-out the Northern European race for
marginalization, devaluation, dispossession and extinction. By
the end of the 1960s this bias had become explicit, as illustrated
by the following account concerning the militant Weatherman faction
of the Students for a Democratic Society:

I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention,
and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was,
"Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary
to kill all newborn white babies." At that point it seemed
like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, "Hey
look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going
to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally,
and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies."
I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting
that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian
aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down. [Note
#12]

By the end of the 1960s Racial Marxism, focused on race rather
than class, was explicit. Perhaps it was too explicit. So it sought
cover by disguising itself in the classic Marxist jargon of class
struggle, only now the class enemy was the "white" or
Northern European race, redefined as a class. In defining the
Northern European race, or "white" race, as a social
class, Racial Marxists theorized that the "white" race
was politically and socially constructed by its position as a
privileged and oppressive social class exploiting other classes
that were socially defined as non-white. According to this theory
the "white" race did not exist genetically or biologically,
but only as a ruling social class. Those who were members of the
ruling class were "white" while those who were not members
were non-white. By this theory the "white" race only
exists when there is another class defined as non-white that is
politically and socially below it that it rules and oppresses.
Also according to this theory the "white" race only
came into existence when Europeans made contact with non-European
peoples during their conquest and colonization of the Americas,
and established themselves as a ruling political and social class
over the native and other non-European peoples. The Europeans
then became "white" and the non-Europeans became non-whites.
The concept of race was then socially and politically constructed
in the Americas to legitimize and secure the ruling position of
the "white" social class.

This theory is blatantly simplistic in its reduction of race
into two groups: "white" and non-white. The peoples
of East Asia and Central Africa certainly regard themselves as
different races, as do the native peoples of the Americas. But
the Racial Marxists cannot admit any differentiation other than
"white" and non-white. To do so would refute their definition
of race as socially constructed classes. Also, the European races
did not change biologically, genetically or racially in the 16th
or 17th century Americas when and where they began to exist in
close contact with other races for the first time. European-Americans
of the 17th and 18th centuries were not biologically, genetically
or racially different from their pre-16th century European ancestors,
or from their European contemporaries. Irish-Americans of the
20th century were not biologically, genetically or racially changed
from their pre-16th century Irish ancestors, or from their contemporaries
in Ireland. The dialectic of Racial Marxism claims the "white"
race only came into existence with the colonization of the Americas
by Europeans in the 16th and 17th centuries. But what historical
race inhabited Europe in the Middle Ages and before if not the
"white" race, the biological ancestors of the people
now classified as "white?" If this were simply a matter
of semantics, with Racial Marxists using the term "white"
for class rather than race, and using other terms for racial classification,
their argument would have some credibility. But what they say
is that race is socially and politically constructed, that this
began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th century, and then spread
to Europe and the world.

It can be argued that the awareness of human racial differences
began in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries as the different
races first came into contact. But the different races existed,
were real, long before they came into contact with each other.
The contact did not create the races. It created awareness and
knowledge of the different races, and that led to the study and
classification of race. Contrary to the theories of Racial Marxism,
America did not create race, nor did it give race to Europe. America
created multiracialism, different races living together in close
contact in the same territory, and in the second half of the 20th
century multiracialism spread to Europe, largely through the efforts
of the Racial Marxists. In the America of previous centuries the
existence of different social classes based on race restricted
and slowed the process of racial intermixture that is the logical
consequence of multiracialism. But in the second half of the 20th
century, largely through the efforts of the Racial Marxists, the
social class barriers between the races that restricted intermixture
were attacked and largely removed, making it possible for the
full consequences of multiracialism -- Northern European racial
destruction through intermixture -- to be realized. Race denial
is part of this process of Northern European racial destruction,
conceptually destroying the Northern European race to promote
its physical destruction.

The social and political construct argument is not about social
class but about race. It is not about science, but about politics,
racial politics. It did not originate from any scientific discovery,
but from the rise of multiracialism and the racial transformation
it is causing. It is not motivated or driven by scientific interests,
but by the ethno-racial interests of the rising non-European groups.
Those who make this argument are not destroying or abolishing
a social class. They are trying to abolish or destroy the Northern
European race.

Race is biological, a creation of genetics, biology, nature
and life. It is biologically constructed through evolution by
the same process of divergence that has created all the diversity
of life. The legal status of being a citizen of a multiracial
country is politically and socially constructed, a creation of
men and their laws rather than biology and nature. This is nowhere
more evident than in a mass multiracial naturalization ceremony
in which a racially mixed group of applicants become naturalized
citizens. The applicants of different races can change their citizenship
and national status by a simple legal procedure. But their race
is determined by their genetic inheritance from their ancestors,
and cannot be changed.

(8) The argument that the individual variation within populations
is greater than the variation between the averages of the different
populations or, put another way, that most human variation occurs
between individuals rather than races. This is another attempt
to minimize the significance and value of racial differences.
But it compares extremes with averages, and the traits it compares
are not the traits that are racially definitive, not traits that
characterize any real geographic population, not the traits by
which we identify races and distinguish them from each other.

(9) Argument by intimidation. This is often the first method
of argument, hoping that the opponent will cower and retreat before
a verbal onslaught of insults, threats and accusations, and that
a substantive argument would not need to be made. If it fails,
and the more substantive argument also fails, it is also often
the argument of last resort as the race denier reverts to it.

(10) Argument by distortion. Race deniers frequently distort,
falsify or misrepresent the arguments for the reality of race,
including racial definitions and systems of classification, in
part to create a strawman that can be easily refuted, and in part
simply to cause confusion.

(11) One-sided argument. This is the milieu in which race denial
thrives and in which it has been promoted, an Orwellian intellectual
milieu of de facto censorship in which the arguments of
racial denial are stated as simple fact and no counter-argument,
challenge or rebuttal is permitted. Given that many, if not all,
of the race denial arguments are fallacies that could be easily
refuted, this is probably also the milieu required for race denial
to succeed. The above newspaper article is an example of this
technique, making many questionable statements that are not questioned
because the report is completely one-sided.

(12) Begging the argument. The theater advertisement mentioned
at the beginning of this essay is an example of this, the claim
that the reality of race has to be denied in order to end racism.
According to this argument, those who believe in the reality of
race are perpetuating and abetting racism and giving aid and comfort
to its practitioners. If one is opposed to racism and wants to
end it, this argument begs, one must deny the reality of race.
As forensic scientist George Gill observes:

Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not
discredit the notion of clines. Yet those with the clinal perspective
who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence
of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial"
faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political
motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least,
the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial"
as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have
come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous.
In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes
racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda
that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the
evidence.

Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as
a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of
the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical
anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility.
In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science
but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. [Note #13]

(13) Pre-emptive or anticipatory argument. As in the quote
of C. Loring Brace in the above newspaper article, this technique
anticipates the normal reaction to the argument and pre-empts
it by stating it first. This advance statement is simply presumed
to refute the anticipated reaction although it does not actually
address or answer it.

(14) Argument from authority. When attempting to convince people
that what they see with their own eyes is not real, does not exist,
and is not to be believed, it helps to be supported by supposed
experts and authorities who are presumed to have superior knowledge
of the subject. Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's
New Clothes" is the classic description of this technique,
and the growing denial of the reality of race, supported by statements
from scientists who are the supposed experts and authorities,
proves that he did not exaggerate. The above newspaper article
is an excellent example of this technique. Yet much of the racial
denial by the scientific community is intellectually dishonest.
Scientists still study race at the genetic level, only they do
not use the word "race," using the word "population"
instead. The geographic populations they study, which they prefer
in native and unmixed (i.e., racially pure or distinct) form,
are of course races, and have been referred to as races for centuries.
But modern scientists do not study racial phenotypes, the traits
that identify and define race, that are race, and therefore should
not be regarded as experts or authorities on racial typology or
identification. Their ability and knowledge in this area may be
no greater than the average person. Yet one does not need to be
an expert to recognize race by phenotype. Everyone does it, including
the scientists who say that race is too ambiguous to recognize.
All of us racially identify every person we look at, automatically,
unintentionally and involuntarily. This is natural, a fact of
nature. We all have the important ability to recognize our own
kind and distinguish it from other kind. Given the focus of this
ability, it is very accurate at distinguishing our own kind or
race from other races, and less accurate at distinguishing other
races from each other. We know our own kind, our own race, best.
This is where the so-called ambiguity of racial identification
by phenotype is found. But the people of other races are able
to distinguish their own race from other races with great accuracy.
Their racial identification is not ambiguous to them, but as distinct
and real as our race is to us.

The scientists who deny the accuracy of racial typology use
it to racially identify people in their everyday lives, outside
of their specialty, as much as the rest of us. So why the denial
of something they have done all their lives? Why the claim that
what they do all the time cannot be done? Most of the same scientists
who now deny the reality of race made no such denial, and found
no difficulty or ambiguity in racial identification, twenty or
thirty years ago. So what has changed? What has happened to cause
the scientifically recognized races of thirty years ago to now
be denied? What discovery or addition to knowledge has proven
that race does not exist? What proof was and is required for the
reality of race, and why? What is the standard for race to be
real, by what definition of race, and who set that standard and
definition? It seems that the supposed experts about race are
trying very hard to be ignorant of race, to know nothing about
race, to deny race, to make themselves believe that race does
not exist. So why the concerted effort to not see what is plain
to all, to be racially blind? Why the exercise in scientific obscurantism?
Is it because racial identification by phenotype is not a product
of scientific study, and remains outside of science because scientists
have not developed a scientific version of it that accounts for
all the complexities of racial reality? Is it because decades
of exhortations to practice racial blindness, and to be literally
racially blind, are having their intended effect? Is it because
the multiracialization of school and college classrooms and faculties,
as well as the news media and most of the workplace, has made
recognition of the reality of race, and the racial tension and
division it causes, socially and politically intolerable? Is it
a logical consequence of the racial revolution and transformation
of the West that began in the 1960s, and of the growing power,
influence, and de facto control and domination of the rising non-Northern
European ethno-racial groups? Or is it a matter of ethno-racial
self-interest for some, as it is for Noel Ignatiev and was for
Franz Boas before him, and political self-interest for others,
as it was for the Emperor's experts in the Andersen story? It
is probably all of these, some more than others. But regardless
of the denials of certain scientists of questionable motive, competence
and integrity, the existence and reality of race is a creation
and fact of nature, not science. Race existed long before science.
Its existence is not dependent on science, but will continue with
or without science, whether science defines it accurately or not.
Those who see reality for themselves know that the scientists
who deny the reality of race are wearing no clothes, despite all
their scientific and expert claims to the contrary.

Response to the 10 points in the PBS series "RACE -
The Power of an Illusion"

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/10things.htm

Copyright (c) California Newsreel, 2003
RACE - The Power of an Illusion
A three-part documentary series from California Newsreel
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble
distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese, but what do those differences
mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does
race affect people today? There's less - and more ­ to race
than meets the eye:

Point 1.
Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did
not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according
to religion, status, class, even language. The English language
didn't even have the word `race' until it turns up in 1508 in
a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

Response to point 1:
The different biological divisions of humanity may not have been
called races until about 500 years ago, but they had already existed
for tens of thousands of years. They were created by divergent
biological evolution, the same branching process that creates
species, and represent an intermediate stage of raciation in a
not yet complete process of speciation. Race is a biological reality
that existed before people were aware of its existence, before
they had an idea or concept of its existence, and independent
of such an awareness, idea or concept. Race is not a political
or social construct, although ideas and concepts of race are subject
to political and social influences.

Until relatively recently, the great majority of people did
not have direct contact with other races, but lived their lives
in racially homogeneous populations where race was simply not
an issue. For the great majority of humanity outside of the Western
world this is still true. Until the last 550 years there was not
even much knowledge about the existence of other races. It has
been the activities of the Western world over the last 550 years
in exploration, colonization and the building of new countries
outside of Europe that has brought different races in direct contact
with each other on a large scale. Along with that direct contact
has come knowledge, and the study, of race and racial differences.

Among ancient societies, the Egyptians had contact with Black
Africans in Nubia to their south, and they certainly made a racial
distinction between themselves and Nubians, as is obvious in their
art. They also took measures to prevent the movement of Nubians
into Egypt. The Greek exposure to different races was essentially
limited to the different Caucasian peoples of the Mediterranean
world. The Romans also had very little direct contact with non-Caucasian
races, but they did have contact with Caucasians beyond the Mediterranean
region and were very aware of racial differences between themselves
and the Semitic peoples of the Levant and the Keltic and Germanic
peoples of Northern Europe. Black Africans were brought into the
Greco-Roman world in small numbers as isolated individuals but
never constituted a population or community in any sense. As individuals,
they usually did not have access to a mate of their own race and
either died without issue or were assimilated in small numbers,
never forming a continuing racial presence.

Before the word race, an Old French term for "line,"
was applied to the different geographic populations of the human
species it was traditionally used to refer to nations as well
as almost any line of ancestral (biological or genetic) descent,
even as narrowly as a specific family line. With the discovery
of the different geographic populations of humanity the usage
of the term race gradually changed to refer to these populations
as the identifiable biological divisions, branches or lines of
humanity.

Point 2.
Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even
gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from
all the members of another so-called race.

Response to point 2:
Race does not consist of one characteristic, trait or gene. It
consists of many characteristics, traits and genes, of a unique
combination or ensemble of characteristics, traits or genes that
distinguishes one race from another. At the level of the major
or primary racial divisions, such as Europeans, Black Africans
and East Asians, all the members of each of these racial divisions
are easily distinguished from the others by their ensemble or
combination of racial characteristics, traits and genes. At the
level of secondary racial divisions, such as Northern and Southern
Europeans, some individual members of the subdivisions are not
easily distinguished from each other by their ensemble of racial
traits, but the populations or subdivisions as a whole are.

Parents of the same race have children of the same race as
themselves. Thus race is inherited from parents and ancestors
from generation to generation. This is beyond question. There
is no evidence, from science or ordinary observation, that race
is not inherited, but overwhelming evidence that it is. Thus race
and racial traits are inherited, and as genes are the only known
or recognized means of transmission of inherited traits it must
be assumed racial traits are genetic. Race is inherited from genes,
and is thus in the genes and has a genetic basis. In fact, its
only basis is genetic. It is created by genes and only by genes.
It is completely and totally genetic. There is no environmental
determination of racial inheritance. Even after many generations
in America, the descendants of Northern Europeans and Black Africans
are still racially unchanged from the native populations of their
racial homelands.

Races are phenotypically real. They can be distinguished by
their phenotype -- their genetically inherited and determined
physical characteristics, traits and appearance -- from other
races. There is no phenotypic overlap between the populations
of major races. All East Asians, Europeans and Black Africans
are easily distinguished from each other based on inherited genetic
racial traits. Even subraces, or racial subdivisions, are easily
distinguished from each other as populations based on visible
inherited genetic racial traits, although there may be overlap
in phenotypic traits at the individual level. Thus the populations
of Sweden and Italy are phenotypically distinct from each other
although there is some overlap at the individual level.

There are racially mixed individuals and populations. Their
phenotypes correlate strongly with the ancestral racial proportions
in their mixture, providing further proof of the genetic reality
of race.

Point 3.
Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans
simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve
into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances,
we are one of the most similar of all species.

Response to point 3:
This is a denial or belittlement of the extent and value of human
racial diversity and variation. What is the standard or definition
for a race or subspecies? This is not stated. The racial deconstructionists
who attempt to define race or subspecies out of existence either
do not state a clear and objective definition or they arbitrarily
change the definition so that it is essentially the same as species.
There is an objective standard for the definition of species --
populations that are unable or unwilling to intermix under natural
conditions. A human subspecies or race is simply any of the biological
divisions of the human species consisting of a population connected
by common ancestry and distinguishable from other populations
by a unique combination or ensemble of genetically transmitted
physical traits. This is the definition of race, the meaning and
measure of race, in common usage for the last four centuries,
and it is something that certainly does exist, that is visibly
and objectively real.

Point 4.
Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited
independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color
have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape,
blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence.
Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything
else about him or her.

Response to point 4:
This may all be true, but so what? Why the attack on skin color?
Does it not have any value in itself? Must its value depend on
its connection with something else? In many cultures of many races
around the world skin color does have a value in itself, with
lighter skin color generally being valued more highly. But what
is the meaning or purpose of this seemingly nonsensical argument?
It sounds like an attempt to trivialize race, reducing it to skin
color. Whether or not the genes influencing skin color have anything
to do with the genes influencing hair form and eye shape they
are certainly strongly correlated with them, and are usually part
of the same unique combination or ensemble of genetic traits that
physically distinguish the different races from each other.

Point 5.
Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the
small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local
population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About
94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans
may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

Response to point 5:
This is the "Lewontin fallacy" discussed above. As Sarich
and Miele (cited above, p. 169) explain, the actual amount of
total human genetic variation that exists within any local population
is 67.5%, not the FST measure of 85%, yet
even by the standards of the FST measure
of 85% the amount of variation between human subspecies or races
is comparable to the variation between the subspecies of other
species. But the races of humanity do share 99.9% of their genes
in common. What does this mean? The proportion of genes we share
is consistent with the fact that all the races of humanity share
hundreds of millions of years of common evolution and ancestry
going back to the first mammals and before. Their divergent evolution
and ancestry began only with their geographic dispersal and separation
into isolated populations spread around the world. The proportion
of genes the human races share in common roughly corresponds with
the temporal length of their common evolution and ancestry. The
genes and genetic traits that the human races share in common
are those that evolved during their common evolution up to their
separation and geographic dispersal. The genes and genetic traits
that vary between the races, that are unique to the different
races, are the newer genes and genetic traits that evolved after
the ancestral racial populations separated from each other. Their
proportion of the total of genetic traits roughly corresponds
with the temporal length of that separation compared to the entire
length of human and mammalian evolution.

The proportion (67.5%) of human genetic variation that is possessed
in common by all human races already existed in the common ancestral
population from which all human lines or races are descended,
and continues to exist in all the descendant human populations.
The proportion (32.5%) of human genetic variation that is unique
to the different races is the newer part that has developed since
the different lines that evolved into the different races separated
and began their genetic division.

Is point #5 claiming, or implying, that the newer genes and
genetic traits that evolved since the geographic separation and
isolation of the different branches of humanity, that are unique
to the different branches and not shared by all, are of no value
or importance? That only the older genes and genetic traits that
evolved before the separation of humanity into different isolated
branches, that all humanity shares in common, have value or importance?
That nothing of value or importance has evolved or developed since
that time? If so, what is the standard that determines which genes
and genetic traits have value and importance? Is commonality,
sameness or equality the standard, that only those older genes
and genetic traits which evolved before the separation of humanity
into different branches, and which all branches share equally
and in common, have value or importance? This would be the egalitarian
ideal, and hence presumably the Marxist ideal, but it is arbitrary.
People do and always have attributed great value and importance
to the newer genes and genetic traits that have evolved since
the separation of humanity into different branches and that are
unique to those different branches, lines or races.

Point 6.
Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies
have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even
debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief
in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances,
ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar
physical characteristics.

Response to point 6:
The different races of humanity are almost as old as the dispersal
of humanity into geographically separated and isolated populations
that evolved into different races. This means that the human races
are as old as the earliest hunter-gatherer stage of existence
similar to that of the Aboriginal population of Australia. Is
slavery as old as that, or even older, predating it? Or is it
not more likely that slavery began after the development of agriculture,
with settled communities and the development of social and economic
heirarchies and inequalities in the distribution of property,
power and wealth? Whatever the answer, it is certainly true that
historically slavery has usually had little or nothing to do with
race as such. But this is necessarily true, because as pointed
out in the response to statement #1 the different races had little
or no direct contact with each other until the last 550 years.
So it is only in the last 550 years that there has been a clear
racial connection to slavery, with a dominant people first having
access to large numbers of slaves of another race.

Point 7.
Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the
radical new principle that "All men are created equal."
But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could
this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain
why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others
took for granted.

Response to point 7:
There is no evolutionary connection between race and freedom.
They are two very different things. Race is a biological division
of a species and a stage in the evolution of a species that is
created by the biological process of divergent evolution or speciation.
Freedom is a social or political condition that is created --
socially and politically constructed -- by people. Ancient Athens,
the celebrated birthplace of democracy and the ideals of freedom
and equality, had an economy based much more on slavery than antebellum
America. Indeed, some Southern apologists for slavery, such as
John C. Calhoun, justified it by comparing it to the example of
ancient Athens and the high civilization it produced. Even without
racial differences between slaves and freemen the Athenians justified
slavery on the grounds that the slaves were inferior. That is
the common historical justification or rationalization for slavery,
which until the last 550 years was usually based on national,
cultural, religious or class differences rather than racial differences.

Point 8.
Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea
evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in
America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination
of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican
lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial
practices were institutionalized within American government, laws,
and society.

Response to point 8:
The belief in the superiority of one's own people and the inferiority
of other peoples is very common among many cultures and races,
and has often been used to justify and rationalize the conquest,
domination, enslavement and even extermination of other races.
This belief and practice has been documented among American Indians,
Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Asian Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans,
Spaniards and others. It has no doubt also been common among peoples
of whom we have no record. It is in no sense unique to the Southern
Europeans who founded and built Latin America or the Northern
Europeans who founded and built North America. What may have been
unique to the Northern Europeans was that, as a population, they
were the first to rise above these beliefs and practices and renounce
them. The exclusion of other races, necessary to maintain the
racial separation and isolation required for racial preservation,
should not be equated with the enslavement or extermination of
other races, as implied in point 8.

Point 9.
Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful
social idea that gives people different access to opportunities
and resources. Our government and social institutions have created
advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and
resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are
aware of it or not.

Response to point 9:
As explained in the previous response to point #2 race is certainly
inherited, and is therefore necessarily genetic, and is therefore
biological. Racism, like any "ism," is an ideology,
a system of beliefs and values. But unlike most other ideologies,
it probably consists of more than this, being grounded by its
biological connections to something much deeper, more fundamental,
instinctive and intuitive, to something that is pysically real
and physically exists, to emotions and behavior that were shaped
by, and helped to shape, the evolution of humanity in general
and each race in particular. Racism is ethnocentric, centered
on, loyal to, and promoting the interests of a person's race.
In the homogeneous racial societies that are our natural state
of existence, and in which we existed until the modern creation
of multiracial societies, race was not an issue, did not give
advantages to one group in the society over other groups, and
did not affect anyone. There were no racial differences to be
aware of. Only in multiracial societies, in which the interests,
including the vital life-essential interests, of the different
races conflict with each other, does race become an issue and
a source of conflict and problems, including the ultimate problem
of racial preservation. Unfortunately, in the context of a multiracial
society, the measures required to preserve a race and protect
its vital interests necessarily include a competition for dominance
and control of the society.

Point 10.
Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist
is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes
and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify
and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage
some groups at the expense of others.

Response to point 10:
This is a call for action to advance the interests and position
of "non-white" groups at the expense of the "white"
group, whose existence is supposedly only an illusion anyway.
And it is being heeded, not only in the United States, but also
in Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Australia,
New Zealand and South Africa. In all these countries the "white"
populations are being dispossessed, displaced, replaced and ultimately
destroyed by actions and policies that promote and benefit the
interests and position of "non-white" groups at the
expense of the most vital interests of the "white" groups,
including their very survival.

Points 6-10 above are not relevant to the issue of whether
race is real or an illusion. All five of these points serve only
one purpose: to beg the argument that race is not real, but is
only an illusion, by the claim that the belief in race leads to
bad things -- including slavery, social and economic inequality,
racial exclusion and racial extermination (genocide) -- so the
belief in race is itself bad and the reality of race must be denied
for moral reasons. By this logic, those who deny the reality of
race, who believe that race is merely an illusion, are considered
morally superior to those who believe race is real. This is the
logic of political correctness, that objective reality must be
denied to serve the worldview, agenda, ideology and moral values
of the dominant globalist and multiracialist power structure.
But the belief that race is not real can also lead to bad things,
very bad things, for the interests of the European peoples in
America, Australia and Europe. In fact, its effects on the European
peoples include their dispossession, displacement and replacement
by the non-European races, and ultimately their destruction, extermination,
annihilation or genocide as their very existence is lost. Racial
denial, the denial of the reality of their existence, paves the
way for the destruction of their existence by the claim that nothing
real is being destroyed, that it is all an illusion, so it is
not a legitimate matter for concern. European racial preservationists,
who believe in the reality of race, do not seek, advocate or promote
the domination, enslavement or destruction of other races, but
the race deniers and deconstructionists, who claim that race is
an illusion, do promote an agenda that leads to the destruction
of the European races. And they pose as morally superior while
doing so.

Conclusion

Before racial denial became the lead argument of the opponents
of Northern European racial preservation their main argument was
the claim that the Northern European race was mixed rather than
"pure," and that because of this racial mixture and
impurity was not worthy of preservation. Of course, these were
the same people who were advocating more, in fact total, racial
intermixture and impurity for the Northern European race, not
the opponents of intermixture who wanted to prevent it in order
to preserve the race. Also, of course, they did not describe the
nature or extent of the intermixture they were referring to, nor
provide any definition or standard of what constitutes racial
"purity" and what level of it is required to justify
racial preservation. Their arguments for racial impurity were,
and are, as ambiguous as the arguments for racial denial. My answer
to them was, and is, the same as my answer to the race deniers
who claim that the race I love and want to preserve is not real
and does not exist, and that there is thus nothing there to preserve.
I tell them that I love and want to preserve my race as it is,
to preserve what is as it is, whatever that might be, and whatever
they might call it. Whether they call it a race or not, or pure
or not, it is the population and associated phenotypes that I
love and want to preserve. And they know what I am talking about.
On an operative level, they know what my race is as well as I
do, and it is as real for them as it is for me. The difference
is that I want to preserve it and they want to destroy it.

Race denial should not be regarded as an isolated phenomenon.
It is very much a product of its times. It can only be properly
understood in the context of the racial revolution and shift in
ethno-racial power of the last half century. It is part of the
ethno-racial offensive against the Northern European race that
is destroying the Northern European peoples racially, genetically
and biologically by multiracialism and racial intermixture. The
existence that it denies is the existence that it is helping to
destroy. As a recent paper on genetic studies that affirms the
reality of race informs us:

Race denial is more than a fallacy. It is more than the sum
of the many fallacies, the false arguments, used to support it.
It is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It serves a
purpose. Race deniers beg their argument with the claim that belief
in race leads to racial oppression and genocide, so the purpose
of race denial is to end racial oppression and prevent genocide.
Actually the reverse is true. The real purpose of race denial
is not to prevent genocide, but to prevent racial preservation,
specifically the preservation of the European races, and most
specifically the Northern European race. In short, the real purpose
of race denial is not to prevent genocide but to help cause it.
The true motive and intent behind race denial is to promote and
assist the racial dispossession, replacement and destruction of
the Northern European race. Race denial, and every race denier,
is against racial preservation, and specifically against the preservation
and continued existence of the Northern European race.

Ironically, race denial is racially motivated. It's source
and base of support is among the non-European ethno-racial groups.
It is they who seek the dispossession, replacement and destruction
of the Northern European race, even in its ancient homelands.
It is they who benefit from it, they who are the dispossessors
and replacements. The existence of the other races is not threatened
by race denial, so they can promote it from a position of racial
immunity. It is the European races, and only the European races,
and above all the Northern European race, who are threatened with
extinction, and whose destruction is assisted by racial denial.
Race denial is anti-Northern European in the most extreme sense
of the term, as against the very existence of the Northern European
race. Thus race denial is itself a part of the racial competition,
and a product of the racial dynamics, the racial dialectic, of
multiracialism and the process of racial destruction that it promotes.
It might appear to be a political phenomenon, with political motives,
but it is actually a racial phenomenon, with racial motives --
motives much stronger and deeper than politics, which is only
the means to serve racial ends. It serves as a cover for those
racial ends. It hides the process of racial destruction behind
the protective cover of a false dogma that says that the race
being destroyed does not really exist, thus nothing real is being
destroyed, and there is no valid reason to resist or oppose the
destruction. But the race that is being destroyed, the population
and its traits that the race deniers are trying or helping to
destroy, are real, and they are mine. They are the object of my
love and devotion, the center of my concern. They are all the
people of Northern European ancestry and type, in their many millions,
whose existence is being denied, and under the cover of that denial
is being destroyed.

How should racial preservationists deal with the growing wave
of race denial in academia and the media? How much of our time
and energy should we devote to the controversy over the reality,
meaning and substance of race? Both sides in the controversy have
an agenda determined by their own group interests. The race deniers
are predominantly members of non-Nordish minority groups who want
to lessen the racial solidarity of the Nordish majority to advance
the interests of their own groups at the expense of Nordish majority
group interests. The race affirmers are predominantly members
of the Nordish majority ethno-racial group who want to increase
the racial identification and solidarity of their group to secure
its preservation and well-being. Denying race raises the bar or
threshold for addressing the issues that really matter: the issues
of ultimate racial interest that are never discussed, but are
evaded and ignored. The more time and effort we put into overcoming
these preliminary arguments the less we can put into addressing
the vital issues of our racial interests.

But this is not just an academic exercise that racial preservationists
can ignore. There are motives and purposes behind these claims.
For minorities in majority Northern European countries who want
to secure their position and weaken the position of the majority
Nordish population it is in their interest to assert that race
does not exist to preempt and weaken majority opposition to their
presence. To racial nihilistic "idealists" whose ideal
is a world without different races asserting that race is not
real is a method of promoting their goal. To those who seek the
dispossession and destruction of the Nordish race in particular,
by replacement and intermixture, claiming the Nordish race does
not exist, or that it is already mixed, serves to discredit and
weaken opposition to intermixture and destruction.

In my own debates with race demeaners and deniers I have found
that it is important to press them for specifics. With those who
make allegations that my race is already thoroughly mixed, or
that a particular individual is mixed, with the purpose of using
this allegation to support further mixture, I ask for specifics
about the alleged mixture, its extent, origin, proportion, etc.,
and for the evidence that supports the allegations. In short,
I tell them to prove or substantiate their allegations or they
will not be credible. With those who deny the reality of race
I stress the importance of definition, give my definition, which
is something that clearly does exist, and ask for their definition,
which they usually will not or cannot provide. The point is that
the allegations of the race demeaners and deniers are seldom substantiated
by specifics or definitions, but are deliberately vague. Specifics
make their falsehood obvious.

That said, it does little good to argue with the race deniers
and race mixers. Their position will not be altered by refuting
their falsehoods as their positions are not really based on them,
but on the interests of their racial group. Still, it is worthwhile
to remove their cover and expose their true motives. It is also
worthwhile to expose the so-called idealism of multiracialists
for what it really is: a program for Nordish destruction and extinction.

1. See
Glayde Whitney's review of The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological
Theories of Race at the Millennium by Joseph L. Graves, Jr.
in the Winter, 2001 issue of the Occidental Quarterly (Vol. I,
No. 2). Graves' claim that race is not real is explicitly motivated
by his opinion that the belief in race is an obstacle to "social
justice" and the elimination of racism.2. The
substance of some of these exchanges can be found on my website
at http://www.racialcompact.com/reality_of_race.html3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University
of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for
Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.4. The
methodology that shows a human-chimp genetic difference of about
1.6% shows a genetic difference of less than .2% between the human
races. Feng-Chi Chen of National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan
and Wen-Hsiung Li of the University of Chicago (2001) put the
human-chimp gene difference at only 1.24%. Prof. Roy Britten of
the California Institute of Technology, using a very different
methodology, puts the figure at 5.4% (2002). This raises the obvious
question regarding the difference between the human races using
this same methodology. Would it also be more than three times
as great?5. Masatoshi
Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury; "Evolutionary Relationships
of Human Populations on a Global Scale," Molecular Biology
and Evolution, Sept. 1993 (pp.927-943):
http://www.molbiolevol.org/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%29&gca=10%2F5%2F927
It is unfortunate that no Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish or Norwegian),
Slavic or Arabic populations were included in this study, and
that the English, German and Italian groups were not divided into
regions. It is possible that an east English group would be genetically
closer to a Danish or northwest German group than to a west English
group.6. These
genetic studies are based on nuclear DNA, the genes that are actually
responsible for racial variation. Other studies of mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA), such as that of Jody Hey and Eugene Harris (1999)
show a difference between the human races that is about 4% of
the difference between humans and chimpanzees.7. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007/
"Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes,
race and disease," Neil Risch et. al., Genome Biology 2002
3(7): comment 2007.1-2007.12. Published 1 July 2002. This article
is an excellent scientific summary of the evidence from genetic
studies for the reality of race.8. http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm
This is a tutorial page on the website of the Behavioral Sciences
Department of Palomar College, San Marcos, California, authored
by Dennis O'Neil. Palomar College is a public two-year community
college with about 30,000 students. The views expressed on this
page are probably representative of what most social science students
are currently taught about race. This should have probably been
a predicted and expected result of multiracial education, with
its chilling effect on racial research, where racial truth is
the first casualty.9. Op.
cit., footnote 7 above.10. Robert
Boyd, "Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep,"
The Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996) p. 14A11. For
a detailed examination of this subject see Kevin MacDonald, The
Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement
in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger,
1998.12. Doug
McAdam, in "Picking Up the Pieces," Part 5 of the PBS
series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991.
It can be assumed that in the context of this Racial Marxist debate
at the Weatherman convention it was understood that the term "white"
did not include Jews.13. Op.
cit., footnote 3 above.14. Op.
cit., footnote 7 above.